STADIUM PLAN COULD FORCE SHOWDOWN

Port, allies swipe at Chargers’ proposal

Backers of a proposed expansion of San Diego’s convention center stepped up quickly Friday to reaffirm their support in the wake of plans by the Chargers to try to derail the project when it heads to the California Coastal Commission next month for a crucial vote.

The Chargers’ renewed push for a joint stadium and convention facility in downtown’s East Village comes at a time when the commission staff is raising concerns of its own about the city’s $520 million project.

In a letter sent last week to the Coastal Commission, Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani argued that the team’s $1.2 billion proposal would offer an alternative outside the coastal zone and would avoid the environmental impacts he says are inherent in the city’s bayfront project.

The latest move by the Chargers opens the door to a major showdown next month when an alliance of city and business leaders, the San Diego Unified Port District and Convention Center Corp. make their case for a project they say will deliver an economic bonanza and attract the kinds of major shows and conferences that cannot fit within the current center.

“The port commissioners remain unanimously committed to the existing plan,” said vice chairman Bob Nelson, a former member of the Convention Center Corp. board. “The Chargers’ plan doesn’t meet the needs of a single customer we have. I’ve met with these people directly, and they want a bigger facility in one contiguous location.”

While not dismissing the Chargers’ proposal for a joint-use facility with retractable roof, interim Mayor Todd Gloria said too many unknowns remain, including financing, its design and how much of a contribution city taxpayers would be called upon to make.

“We know that (the city’s) project has the united support of this community: business and labor, members of the City Council, the interim mayor, our Convention Center board, our port commission,” Gloria said Friday at a news conference. “And we will be there in force to communicate that to our commissioners in October.”

Next month’s hearing provides the Chargers with an opening to piggyback on concerns raised by Coastal Commission staff that the bayfront expansion will impede views to the water and access to the waterfront. The staff also has found fault with the Port of San Diego’s analysis of alternative expansion locations beyond the existing site.

“The city and port started with the premise that they can only do contiguous space, and I think they should have pushed it a little harder to determine whether off-site space would be feasible,” Coastal Commission planner Diana Lilly said Friday. “No one is against the idea of expanding the center, but is that the right location to do it? We don’t disagree that an off-site location would be less than ideal, but so is the expansion they’re proposing now because of its impacts to public resources, especially public views and public access to the waterfront.”

Port officials countered that 11 different sites, some of them “noncontiguous,” were evaluated, and all were found lacking for various reasons. A citizens task force formed by former Mayor Jerry Sanders also studied the matter for a year, said Port spokeswoman Michele Ganon.